Allowed

M M Thammaiah @ Kirana v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Apr 2026CRL.P/16879/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail sought by the accused in a murder case based on circumstantial evidence, with no eye witnesses and 39 of 41 witnesses already examined. The court noted long judicial custody, deep roots in society, no criminal antecedents, and granted bail subject to stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in SC No.5020/2024 on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one solvent surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with trial and non-tampering with witnesses.

M M Thammaiah @ Kirana Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:22096 CRL.P No. 16879 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16879 OF 2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M.M. THAMMAIAH @ KIRANA S/O LATE MEDAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT KAVADI VILLAGE AND POST VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 218.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI PUTTARAJA C.P, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIRAJPET RURAL POLICE STATION KODAGU DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO GRANT BAIL IN (CR.NO.139/223) S.C.NO.524/2024 P/U/S 302 OF IPC REGISTERED BY VIRAJPET RURAL P.S. ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT KODAGU AT MADIKERI SITTING AT VIRAJPET.

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:22096 CRL.P No. 16879 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed by the accused in SC No.5020/2024 pending before the Court of II Addl. District and Sessions Court, Kodagu-Madikeri, sitting at Virajpet, arising out of Crime No.139/2023 registered by Virajpet Rural Police Station, Kodagu, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail.

¶23

Facts of the case are that on 17.10.2023, complaint

¶24

was lodged alleging that the mother of accused Smt. M. M. Jothi died in suspicious circumstances. The allegations in the charge sheet are that accused was residing with his mother deceased Jothi. He was in the habit of quarrelling with her for money and with an intent to consume alcohol. A panchayat was conveyed to this effect as the accused was constantly quarrelling with the mother and in which the accused had given an undertaking in writing stating he would not harass his mother.

¶25

On 16.10.2023 at 09.45 p.m. while the deceased was sitting in the hall and watching television, the accused picked

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:22096 CRL.P No. 16879 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

up quarrel with her over trivial matter of adding salt in the food and with an intent to commit her murder, pushed her against the wall and thereafter strangulated her neck with his right hand causing her death. Complaint was lodged and thereafter, accused was implicated for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. After investigation, charge sheet has been laid against the accused and the accused was taken into custody for interrogation.

¶29

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged against him and he has been falsely implicated in the case and there are no reasonable grounds on record to believe that the petitioner/accused is guilty of the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life for the reason that allegations made against the accused are vexatious and concocted. It is further contented by learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that there are no eye witnesses to the incident. He is in custody for more than two years eight months. It is further contented by learned counsel for the petitioner that out of 41 witnesses, 39 witnesses are examined.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:22096 CRL.P No. 16879 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The case is based on circumstantial evidence and some of the

¶34

witnesses have been given up by the prosecution. It is contented that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family. If he is kept in judicial custody for long, he will be branded as offender and a hard core criminal rendering his life into ruins. He has further contended that petitioner has deep roots in the society and has got a good image around the vicinity. It is also contended that the petitioner will not flee away from justice and will cooperate with the trial which is at the fag end and he will abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner had filed a petition earlier before the learned Sessions Judge for grant of regular bail in Crl.Misc.No.5175/2025, which came to be rejected by order dated 20.09.2025. Hence, he seeks this Court to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail.

¶35

Per contra , learned HCGP representing the State vehemently contends that the accused has committed heinous offence of murdering his own mother and he was having prior history of being a drunkard and alcoholic and on every

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:22096 CRL.P No. 16879 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

occasion, he would pick up quarrel and fight with his mother, to which a panchayat was conducted in which he has tendered his apology, which is on record. It is also contented by learned HCGP that the gravity of the offence is serious and if convicted, it could be imprisonment for life or he may be convicted even for death. Therefore, he seeks for rejection of the bail.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and learned HCGP for the respondent State.

¶40

There is no dispute with regard to relationship between the petitioner/accused and the deceased, who was his mother. The incident has occurred on 16.10.2023 at 09.45 p.m., and the mother has died. Investigation is completed and trial has begun and 39 witnesses have been examined out of 41 witnesses. Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses. The case is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Few more witnesses are left to be examined. The petitioner/accused has been in judicial custody for two years eight months and few days. Since the evidence is coming to a fag end, if the petitioner is released on bail, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:22096 CRL.P No. 16879 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

as he can be put on stringent conditions to participate in the trial. This Court is of the opinion that petitioner is aged 37 years, has deep roots in the Society. There are no criminal antecedents against petitioner. It is also seen the petitioner is the sole bread winner of the family. He is a permanent resident of Kodagu District. It is seen the petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation. Most of the witnesses are examined, there is no chance of fleeing from justice or tampering with witnesses. If the petitioner is not released on bail, there are chances of getting into bad company and becoming hard core criminal. Therefore, I am of the opinion that stringent conditions can be imposed and accused can be granted bail rather than languishing in judicial custody.

¶45

It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 , wherein at paras-1, 2, 5 and 6, it is held as under:

¶46

"Leave granted. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However,

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:22096 CRL.P No. 16879 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.

¶51

2. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.

¶52

xxx

¶53

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:22096 CRL.P No. 16879 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

5. The historical background of the provision for bail has been elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India (2018) 11 SCC 1 going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision, reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was held way back in Nagendra Nath Chakravarti, In re AIR 1924 Cal 476 that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was also made to Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson AIR 1931 All 356 wherein it was observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The provision for bail is therefore age-old and the liberal interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a century old, going back to colonial days.

¶57

6. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory."

¶58

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:22096 CRL.P No. 16879 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

9. Accordingly, I pass the following:-

¶62

ORDER

¶63

The petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail in SC No.5020/2024 pending before the Court of II Addl. District and Sessions Court, Kodagu-Madikeri, sitting at Virajpet, arising out of Crime No.139/2023 registered by Virajpet Rural Police Station, Kodagu, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶64

a) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one solvent surety for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶65

b) The petitioner shall co-operate with the trial.

¶66

c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses;

¶67

d) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

¶68